Read the Paper, Write the Code: Agentic Reproduction of Social-Science Results

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21965v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:59:18 GMT
• Title: Read the Paper, Write the Code: Agentic Reproduction of Social-Science Results
• Abstract summary: We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers.<n>Agents never see the original code, results, or paper.<n>An error attribution step traces through the system chain to identify root causes.
• Score: 46.81245843451412
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent work has used LLM agents to reproduce empirical social science results with access to both the data and code. We broaden this scope by asking: Can they reproduce results given only a paper's methods description and original data? We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers, runs reimplementations under strict information isolation -- agents never see the original code, results, or paper -- and enables deterministic, cell-level comparison of reproduced outputs to the original results. An error attribution step traces discrepancies through the system chain to identify root causes. Evaluating four agent scaffolds and four LLMs on 48 papers with human-verified reproducibility, we find that agents can largely recover published results, but performance varies substantially between models, scaffolds, and papers. Root cause analysis reveals that failures stem both from agent errors and from underspecification in the papers themselves.

Related papers

• Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research [75.8770212601511]
  Deep research (DR) systems produce long-form cited reports by orchestrating multiple agents that search and synthesize information from the web.<n> Citations are the primary mechanism for evaluating the faithfulness of these reports, yet current DR systems exhibit poor citation recall.<n>We propose an evaluation method that pinpoints which agent introduced each error by locally testing agent invocations for faithfulness and verifiability relative to their own inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T09:34:18Z)
• Coding-agents can replicate scientific machine learning papers [0.0]
  Paper-replication makes each selected paper claim a target with recorded evidence, and implement it as a coding-agent skill.<n>The workflow makes the agent record those targets, reconstruct the paper's method, run computational experiments, link generated outputs to provenance and comparisons with the paper's claims.<n>We evaluate Paper-replication on twelve independent runs across four scientific machine learning papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T13:11:30Z)
• ReproRepo: Scaling Reproducibility Audits with GitHub Repository Issues [54.98461672730087]
  We introduce ReproRepo, a scalable framework for evaluation that leverages human-raised GitHub issues as naturally occurring supervision on realistic reproduction blockers.<n>We instantiate ReproRepo on 1,149 recent machine learning papers from major conferences and evaluate four frontier model-agent configurations.<n>Our results show that LLM agents, even without executing code, can identify many real-world problems from paper-repository pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T17:58:05Z)
• AI Coding Agents Can Reproduce Social Science Findings [5.410553210073652]
  Recent evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code.<n>We introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains.<n>We find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T21:00:05Z)
• The Last Human-Written Paper: Agent-Native Research Artifacts [106.47848184955576]
  We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package.<n>Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T16:23:09Z)
• Paper Circle: An Open-source Multi-agent Research Discovery and Analysis Framework [82.66443886385125]
  Paper Circle is a discovery and analysis system designed to reduce the effort required to find, assess, organize, and understand academic literature.<n>The system comprises two complementary pipelines: (1) a Discovery Pipeline that integrates offline and online retrieval from multiple sources, multi-agent scoring, diversity-aware ranking, and structured outputs; and (2) an Analysis Pipeline that transforms individual papers into structured knowledge graphs with typed nodes such as concepts, methods, and figures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:59:58Z)
• ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences [19.81372090301296]
  ReplicatorBench is an end-to-end benchmark for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages.<n>We develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments.<n>We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T20:42:10Z)
• Automating Computational Reproducibility in Social Science: Comparing Prompt-Based and Agent-Based Approaches [0.3637090866781549]
  Reproducing computational research is often assumed to be as simple as rerunning the original code with provided data.<n>This study investigates whether large language models and AI agents can automate the diagnosis and repair of such failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T11:59:59Z)
• Paper2Agent: Reimagining Research Papers As Interactive and Reliable AI Agents [24.762629506054125]
  We introduce Paper2Agent, an automated framework that converts research papers into AI agents.<n>Paper2Agent transforms research output from passive artifacts into active systems that can accelerate downstream use, adoption, and discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:28:42Z)
• Beyond Isolated Dots: Benchmarking Structured Table Construction as Deep Knowledge Extraction [80.88654868264645]
  Arranged and Organized Extraction Benchmark designed to evaluate ability of large language models to comprehend fragmented documents.<n>AOE includes 11 carefully crafted tasks across three diverse domains, requiring models to generate context-specific schema tailored to varied input queries.<n>Results show that even the most advanced models struggled significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T06:37:51Z)
• Collapse of Dense Retrievers: Short, Early, and Literal Biases Outranking Factual Evidence [56.09494651178128]
  Retrieval models are commonly used in Information Retrieval (IR) applications, such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)<n>We quantify the impact of biases, such as a preference for shorter documents, on retrievers like Dragon+ and Contriever.<n>We uncover major vulnerabilities, showing retrievers favor shorter documents, early positions, repeated entities, and literal matches, all while ignoring the answer's presence!
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T23:23:13Z)
• Attribute or Abstain: Large Language Models as Long Document Assistants [58.32043134560244]
  LLMs can help humans working with long documents, but are known to hallucinate. Existing approaches to attribution have only been evaluated in RAG settings, where the initial retrieval confounds LLM performance. This is crucially different from the long document setting, where retrieval is not needed, but could help. We present LAB, a benchmark of 6 diverse long document tasks with attribution, and experiments with different approaches to attribution on 5 LLMs of different sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T16:16:02Z)
• A Study on Reproducibility and Replicability of Table Structure Recognition Methods [3.8366337377024298]
  We examine both and replicability of a corpus of 16 papers on table structure recognition (TSR) We reproduce results consistent with the original in only four of the 16 papers studied. No paper is identified as replicable using the new dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T16:30:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.